Yes, Stephen King wrote the novella the film was based on, but Frank Darabont wrote and directed the film...

And yes, SPOILERS for those who don't want to be...well, SPOILED, even though the movie came out about 3 years ago...

People still don't know that:

**MAJOR SPOILERS**
Luke is Darth Vader's son....

**END OF MAJOR, MAJOR SPOILERS**

Anywho, I saw this film the other day....along with Birth. Both movies I thought were going to give me something snazzy but the ending of both movies seemed to be 'Ah ha! Made you stay and waste 2 hours!'

With The Mist: You invested so much in these characters, and those who leave at the end...you think a little twist, a little bit of interesting storytelling is going to occur...

...But no...

After all the gore, the preaching, characters who made it through the disasters by being level-headed and strong-willed suddenly give up, and the middle finger is given.

I'm describing the main character portrayed by Thomas Jane, and the few individuals who follow his lead throughout the film.

It's like....

It's like being given a valentine by a television producer; you think something special is going to be done towards the end of a television show with characters you invest in, but all you get is something indescribable...something bad...where the characters are suddenly 'out of character'...and the story changes for the worst.

It's even more of a back-handed slap when I see that it has a 7.4 rating on IMDB....

I would like to get some thoughts on what some of the posters thought of.....The Mist...

I thought Darabont went too far with the ending. I think he wanted to try to top King in terms of nihilistic endings (something King is known for) and that's why we got that ending. It's very gut wrenching and to me lessens my enjoyment of the film being that it comes out of nowhere and disrupts the essence of the film. When I do watch it on cable I tend to turn the film off a few minutes before it ends to keep it more like King's original ending in my mind.

I thought it was an effective thriller with imaginative visuals, and a very gutsy ending that shook me up, but hey, if a horror movie doesn't shake you up, isn't that like a chick flick that doesn't make you cry?

There are half a dozen or so The Mist threads easily found in the archives, including at least three dealing primarily with the ending. Sure, they've been dormant for a while, but it wouldn't have been to difficult to dig up one of them, nor would it have taken much time to read a few of the opinions already offered there...

My own take: it's the perfect ending. If you want the novella ending, it's already shot and released... in The Birds. To have kept that ending and aped Hitch's film would've been tolerable, but pretty lame.

Instead, we get a happy ending (humanity seems to win), but not such a happy ending that we can say "it's all right, he's got a new wife, etc." By denying us that catharsis, and the soothing ending of "the little boy will be all right, and, like Harry Potter in the sh***iest epilogue EVER, will one day be totally fine", we're left with the same shock the survivors have.

As for the novella's ambiguous ending... I feel that it's much more suited to the Cold War era of The Birds/the King novella. Maybe if the movie had been set then, I wouldn't have minded seeing it on screen. But to tack it on now, when it's pretty clear that much of humanity will endure for some time, would have simply struck me as cheap.

I HATED the ending. It was a freaking IDIOT plot ending. How MANY abandoned cars with tanks FULL of gas did they drive past? How many abandoned GAS stations? These people were NOT stupid and they did NOT wish to die. Yes, I can accept that in a moment of crisis after so much trial that they might have lost hope. But it is unacceptable to me that these characters simply IGNORED the gas needle creeping toward "empty" as they drove mile after mile after MILE along major highway and doubtless through towns and cities (conveniently NOT shown) to run their tanks dry in a godforsaken remote location with no hope of finding fuel. It was stupid and purposefully not shown because in the minds of most audience's what you don't see on screen doesn't matter and makes no difference. It bugs me that there was NO WAY these characters could get where they went without passing probably THOUSANDS of opportunities for fuel, yet they didn't bother.

Then, the gimmick ending which was telegraphed a hundred miles away annoyed me to no end. I much preferred King's original ambiguous yet HOPEFUL ending.

I HATED the ending. It was a freaking IDIOT plot ending. How MANY abandoned cars with tanks FULL of gas did they drive past? How many abandoned GAS stations? These people were NOT stupid and they did NOT wish to die. Yes, I can accept that in a moment of crisis after so much trial that they might have lost hope. But it is unacceptable to me that these characters simply IGNORED the gas needle creeping toward "empty" as they drove mile after mile after MILE along major highway and doubtless through towns and cities (conveniently NOT shown) to run their tanks dry in a godforsaken remote location with no hope of finding fuel. It was stupid and purposefully not shown because in the minds of most audience's what you don't see on screen doesn't matter and makes no difference. It bugs me that there was NO WAY these characters could get where they went without passing probably THOUSANDS of opportunities for fuel, yet they didn't bother.

Then, the gimmick ending which was telegraphed a hundred miles away annoyed me to no end. I much preferred King's original ambiguous yet HOPEFUL ending.

Click to expand...

They were afraid to leave the car, even for a few minutes, after what they saw in previous few days. I think they lost the last bits of hope when they saw that giant animal crossing their path.

I HATED the ending. It was a freaking IDIOT plot ending. How MANY abandoned cars with tanks FULL of gas did they drive past? How many abandoned GAS stations? These people were NOT stupid and they did NOT wish to die. Yes, I can accept that in a moment of crisis after so much trial that they might have lost hope. But it is unacceptable to me that these characters simply IGNORED the gas needle creeping toward "empty" as they drove mile after mile after MILE along major highway and doubtless through towns and cities (conveniently NOT shown) to run their tanks dry in a godforsaken remote location with no hope of finding fuel. It was stupid and purposefully not shown because in the minds of most audience's what you don't see on screen doesn't matter and makes no difference. It bugs me that there was NO WAY these characters could get where they went without passing probably THOUSANDS of opportunities for fuel, yet they didn't bother.

Then, the gimmick ending which was telegraphed a hundred miles away annoyed me to no end. I much preferred King's original ambiguous yet HOPEFUL ending.

Click to expand...

They were afraid to leave the car, even for a few minutes, after what they saw in previous few days. I think they lost the last bits of hope when they saw that giant animal crossing their path.

I loved this film and the ending.

Click to expand...

I understand they were afraid to leave the car, but they were not children. The HAD to leave the car, the same way they HAD to leave the grocery. To stay in the car without refueling was CERTAIN death. To at least ATTEMPT refueling was to attempt to stay alive.

I enjoyed the movie until the last few minutes. Enjoyed it immensely, in fact. And had the characters died in an attempt at refueling or in some effort to save themselves, I could have at least respected that. As it was, their choice to run the car out of gas and then just . . . kill themselves . . . did not FIT the personalities of these characters and was fully inconsistent with their behavior and attitudes up to that point. They CHOSE to make a desperate situation hopeless by their actions.

I'm glad you enjoyed it and I don't begrudge you that. Taste in these matters is certainly subjective. I, on the other hand, did NOT enjoy the last few minutes of an otherwise fine movie. It's a REAL shame that there was not an alternate ending filmed consistent with King's original conclusion. In fact, that would have made a very nice promotion for the film. Audiences in one theater see the down-beat ending. Audiences in another theater see the more hopeful ending. Would have been a pretty cool way to get repeat business.

^^ There are problems with refueling. How much gas can you pump without electricity. How do you collect food, when any room or building could be thoroughly infested. How do you take a crap...

Agreed about the giant dinosaur bug. Given the characters' already precarious emotional states, I have no problem believing that that thing changed everything. People do funny stuff under extreme duress.

And please note that the film ending is more hopeful for the rest of us humans who appear to survive, unlike the total question mark of the novella.

I loved the ending. I don't understand what the problem is with it. They thought rescue was out of reach. They could die of thirst, be eaten, or go quickly.

Click to expand...

I have to agree, I loved the movie and the ending. This was the first movie to truly scare me and freak me out in a long time. The ending simply made my jaw drop, I was saying WTF?, but in a good way.Yes, the optomist in me wanted to see a happy ending, but still it was awsome.

It's like having--even though I haven't seen the film, but I know of the actual woman--Erin Brockovich be so determined for most of the film...and suddenly, towards the end, give up with no reason.

Yeah, we know she didn't 'give up' in reality, but we're looking at an 'alternate reality' if you will....

We can look at another character: Rocky Balboa. He goes through majority of the film (the first) determined to get his shot, but at the very last minute he gives up...We're not told why...he just gives up...(Maybe he starts screaming like Thomas Jane in the film , but still...)...

Don't get me wrong, I was disapointed, but then I thought to myself, I would do the same thing and that's why it's a good ending because it made me reconsider my will to live.Besides, with Stephen King I sort of expect a wiered ending.If "It" would have ended that way, I would have Bern pissed. I guess it depends on the circumstance .

I thought it was an effective thriller with imaginative visuals, and a very gutsy ending that shook me up, but hey, if a horror movie doesn't shake you up, isn't that like a chick flick that doesn't make you cry?